Please consider the source FReepers before you dislocate your knees.
Slimes trolling through the city dumpsters again.
Good thing Congress didn't do that in the Schiavo matter; instead Congress legislated a de novo review in federal court under the exigent circumstances of starving her to death.
I've already read the tea leaves with Roberts and all systems remain go.
Apparently it was a closed meeting between Wyden and Roberts, so who knows what was said exactly.
Wyden meets with Supreme Court nominee Roberts
http://www.kgw.com/sharedcontent/APStories/stories/D8BSJMHG0.html
Wyden, a Democrat, met with Roberts for nearly an hour Tuesday at Wyden's Senate office.
The meeting was closed, but Wyden said later that he asked Roberts about Schiavo,
Wyden, who is undecided on Roberts' nomination, said Roberts told him he could not comment on the Schiavo case directly.
But Roberts did answer when Wyden asked if he thought it was constitutional for Congress to intervene in an end-of-life-case with a specific remedy. In the Schiavo case, many lawmakers advocated reinserting a feeding tube to help her live.
Roberts told Wyden he was concerned with judicial independence. Congress can prescribe standards, Roberts added, "but when Congress starts to act like a court and prescribe particular remedies in particular cases, Congress has overstepped its bounds."
Wyden said he considered the answer significant, "because the question I was asking has applicability" to the Schiavo case.
Offering a remedy "is what Congress was doing in the original version of the Schiavo bill," Wyden said, adding that Roberts "would not look favorably on Congress rushing to override the right to be left alone."
====
Roberts effectively side stepped the question.
His answer was 100% correct.
In regards to the Schiavo case, Congress only required that other judges review the case. Congress did not mandate a specific decision. It only hoped that the judges would perform their due diligence and examine the case to ensure that real justice and not formulaic justice was served on Shiavo's behalf.
It was properly within the scope of Congress to ask for such a review, just as it was properly within the scope of the courts to perform the review as they saw fit, and to decide as they saw fit.
The independence of the court was maintained. The balance of powers worked as designed.
It is sad that common sense did not prevail. That the husband no longer had a vested interest in keeping her alive, and should've divested himself of the guardianship. That Terri's wishes were not clear. That if Terri was not in a persistant vegetative state, then to allow her to die would've been murder. Or, that if she was in a PVS, then she was beyond caring about her dignity, and that it would've been more important to Terri that her parent's be allowed to care for her, so they could maintain a link with her, and maintain their hope - than to have them completely cut off from involvement in her care, and eventually to have them callously discarded by the courts as irrelevant.